Is a generalist build even viable? Options

[Teryon]

Common sense wise.

You would need a full sensor suite to use an empathy program. Pheromone sniffers (biochemical changes), thermal imagining, multiple cameras getting 3d facial and body position data, micro phones (vocal analysis). In reality you would have to have a secondary sensor suite somewhere linked to the comlink.

Well, if we're doing 'in reality' there wouldnt be pheromones at all (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) And given the ridiculous levels of 2070 technology, having stereoptic 3D extrapolation, thermal imaging and the detailed kind of visual motion detection wouldnt really need to be that big a deal. Id discount vocal sensor data as too unreliable.

[Yerameyahu]

Common sense is a very tricky thing to claim. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I agree that a camera (that's already plenty for '3D'), thermal, audio, and (*maybe*) scent could each provide useful information. That's not to say that Empathy software requires all of them:

Empathy software is designed for use with standard video/trideo cameras,

If you want to factor them in, just require one per Rating. Lie Detection gives a bonus for having thermal, and it doesn't even use voice analysis. If you change Empathy to work like Lie Detection (rolls its own Test, instead of a straight DP bonus), then perhaps give 2 per sensor type (equal to the Lie Detection Thermal bonus).

I do agree that voice analysis should be an option in the Sensor Software rules. As it is, it's mostly just 'Camera Software'; there's one Thermal (still a camera), and two audio (neither analyzes voices beyond matching).

[Triggvi]

Well, if we're doing 'in reality' there wouldnt be pheromones at all (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) And given the ridiculous levels of 2070 technology, having stereoptic 3D extrapolation, thermal imaging and the detailed kind of visual motion detection wouldnt really need to be that big a deal. Id discount vocal sensor data as too unreliable.

There is a biochemical component to smell. Vocal analysis is very reliable when taken with other data. We are not taking lie detection.

Adding thermal and biochemical and vocal analysis and body language analysis makes the projection model better.

[Yerameyahu]

Sort of a social TacNet at this point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) For the right game, this level of sensor/software complexity would be neat. I understand why the RAW might not want to be that complex, but there's no reason the Empathy software couldn't simply function just like the Lie Detection (for different purposes).

[Glyph]

Getting away from the game balance/power creep issues, my biggest problem with empathy software isn't its ability to analyze social cues, but the fact that you can use it to get an advantage in social situations in real time.

Sorry, but I can't see that. Being involved in a stressful social interaction such as negotiating with a Johnson will already take most of a runner's concentration. I can't see that runner analyzing a bunch of data scrolling down on a display link at the same time. Analyzing a recording afterwards to see if the Johnson showed any nervous tics or signs of lying about something, I could accept. But in real time? No.

[Yerameyahu]

It's not data, it's analysis. The user probably just sees instructions: 'push harder', 'back off', 'bribe', 'smile', that kinda thing. With a little practice, it's just like having another sense. (Same with all AR).

[ProfGast]

It's not data, it's analysis. The user probably just sees instructions: 'push harder', 'back off', 'bribe', 'smile', that kinda thing. With a little practice, it's just like having another sense. (Same with all AR).

'PRESS X NOW!!'
'LEFT!'
'TRIANGLE!'
...
Now we take Quicktime Events out of video games and into social interaction! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

While QTEs are the devil… yes. AR means life is a video game. Empathy software is aimhack.

Don't forget, also, that AR is full simsense: emotion, touch, smell, color, *anything*. You could simply *know* that you had to smile then, or laugh, or threaten. 100% realtime, fast-as-thought.

[Ascalaphus]

But doesn't that basically turn empathy software into a kind of Activesoft, that replaces your own skill rather than enhances it?

[ProfGast]

While QTEs are the devil… yes. AR means like is a video game. Empathy software is aimhack.

Don't forget, also, that AR is full simsense: emotion, touch, smell, color, *anything*. You could simply *know* that you had to smile then, or laugh, or threaten. 100% realtime, fast-as-thought.

Given how people can flub QTEs, or how I'm sure someone could hack empathy software of crash it... the resulting glitches or social gaffes could be hilarious.

Johnson(secretly Humanis, professionally hiding distaste): You all have been hired for your strict professionalism and ability to get the jo--
Face(Ork, following prompt that says 'open for romantic overture'): Are you free this weekend? I'd love to take you out to dinner and a movie.
Johnson: .... what?
Hacker: [[Dude, I just tracked her down. She's part of Humanis]]
Face: [[DAMMIT glitchy software!]]

[Yerameyahu]

Maybe? Activesofts are a mess to begin with, so who knows? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If you're getting +6 to all Social tests, isn't that vastly better than an ActiveSoft anyway?

I definitely agree, some combination of tweaks needs to be made, but I don't think they should be justified by faulty setting-science logic, that's all. The main thing that makes sensor software what it is is that it requires sensors. So, my suggestion remains this: require more sensors, and dial back the bonus.

Yes, you certainly can hack anything hackable. It's a good idea, too. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Nifft]

It's not data, it's analysis. The user probably just sees instructions: 'push harder', 'back off', 'bribe', 'smile', that kinda thing. With a little practice, it's just like having another sense. (Same with all AR).

Yep yep. Maybe it takes all the non-visual cues and turns them into a colored halo behind the person's head (like a mood ring, except accurate) -- so if someone is nervous, you get slivers of yellow light instead of a pure blue circle, or something.

[Teryon]

Maybe? Activesofts are a mess to begin with, so who knows? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If you're getting +6 to all Social tests, isn't that vastly better than an ActiveSoft anyway?

I definitely agree, some combination of tweaks needs to be made, but I don't think they should be justified by faulty setting-science logic, that's all. The main thing that makes sensor software what it is is that it requires sensors. So, my suggestion remains this: require more sensors, and dial back the bonus.

Yes, you certainly can hack anything hackable. It's a good idea, too. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

This is why you have a dummy commlink and then the real one that's set to autistic mode to stop those durned kids with their datajacks or the TM's being all 'In ur dataspace haxin ur nodes'. But seriously, if you require more sensors *AND* dial back the bonus, why bother? Im not going to invest in a full sensor rig that'll be blatantly obvious for like a +1 or +2. Perhaps combo it? Each level of defined sensor capability raises the level of empathy software you can run(sure, go ahead and buy rating 6...you only have the sensors for rating 2, and thats what you`ll get!).

[Whipstitch]

The really weird thing about the +6 being so much better than activesofts is just how intricate social interactions are and all the myriad motivations people have for the ways they're acting. I've never had a problem with realizing when a girlfriend was angry with me. But man, did the drek hit the fan when she realized that I didn't really know why she was angry with me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Teryon]

Well, yeah, but that's where the other social skills come in with the idea of dancing around the idea, or using noncommittal phrasing, redirecting the conversation, inciting emotional responses in the other party to make them forget the original faux pas, etc. Which is why I like the idea of empathy software in some respects; it can tell you to stop pushing a subject or the he\she's getting angry, but if your charisma is 1 or 2 with a few meager social skills(or none at all) you're still not likely to know how to take ADVANTAGE of the information like someone with cha 5+ and a shit-ton of social skills.

[Yerameyahu]

Teryon, I'm sure you're in the minority there. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) A shadowrunner will almost certainly 'invest' in sensors (that you *know* they'd already have), for the +3 bonus I suggested to all social tests. It's a big deal, and cheap.

You're right, the most interesting thing is to let the bonus scale with the sensors, so that you get the best bonus that either your software or sensors can support, but no better. Perhaps +1 per the following sensors: camera, thermal, audio, and sniffer? That way, you can only get +1 or +2 over a videochat, and maybe +3 or +4 in person. With the best software to allow the full bonus, of course.

[Whipstitch]

Teryon, on the one hand, I sort of know what you mean. On the other, I just keep thinking "Good god, is 6 a whole lot of dice for something that's works in all social situations." A social adept should seriously be using it all the time even if by all rights he'd probably be thinking "Yeah, tell me something I don't know" after every suggestion.

[Yerameyahu]

I think we all agree that +6 to all social tests is too much/too unrestricted, *regardless* of cost. I mean, that's more than (well, maybe equal to) their original DP for Joe Average.

[ProfGast]

You're right, the most interesting thing is to let the bonus scale with the sensors, so that you get the best bonus that either your software or sensors can support, but no better. Perhaps +1 per the following sensors: camera, thermal, audio, and sniffer? That way, you can only get +1 or +2 over a videochat, and maybe +3 or +4 in person. With the best software to allow the full bonus, of course.

I rather like the idea of limiting it by sensors. I can imagine there would be some meet-and-greet locales which would have booths with an entire suite of upgraded sensors installed, and could rent out use of those sensors to Johnsons, runners, or fixers so they'd have an advantage over whomever they're meeting with. Chairs that check body temperature, hidden cameras across a bunch of wavelengths, biometric sensors for heart rate... it's definitely a fun idea. Now you know why that Johnson would only meet you on the 3rd floor of Dante's Inferno in the corner booth! It's the only place where his expensive empathy software can give maximum bonuses.

[Yerameyahu]

Don't forget that you can get heartrate remotely: motion sensors (which use ultrasound) and UWB radar (IIRC) can do that. That adds another layer to this: you can always check and see if active sensors are being used *on* you (in addition to the earlier Kinesics/etc. resistance ideas).

[Teryon]

Teryon, I'm sure you're in the minority there. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) A shadowrunner will almost certainly 'invest' in sensors (that you *know* they'd already have), for the +3 bonus I suggested to all social tests. It's a big deal, and cheap.

You're right, the most interesting thing is to let the bonus scale with the sensors, so that you get the best bonus that either your software or sensors can support, but no better. Perhaps +1 per the following sensors: camera, thermal, audio, and sniffer? That way, you can only get +1 or +2 over a videochat, and maybe +3 or +4 in person. With the best software to allow the full bonus, of course.

Probably am, Im also likely envisioning sensors as being a wee bit larger and more obvious than they are as far as the rules and fluff are concerned. Not only does it give the opposition a clue at least on how to bugger the stuff, they could go as far as taking away said devices or whatever options there are for precision elimination of electronics. Still, sensor scaling is the best bet, even though I thoroughly question the use of sniffers(on humans anyway; metahumans? perhaps different story). At any rate I can easily pick up +3 just with a commlink(audio addon, claim hard of hearing) and modded contact lenses by this houserule (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Teryon, on the one hand, I sort of know what you mean. On the other, I just keep thinking "Good god, is 6 a whole lot of dice for something that's works in all social situations." A social adept should seriously be using it all the time even if by all rights he'd probably be thinking "Yeah, tell me something I don't know" after every suggestion.

I picture it more as elimination of grunt work. Let the software focus on the more mundane social cues leaving the social adept able to keep an eye out for the way subtler stuff, or the analysis portion that takes 'Uncomfortable about topic X, seems to be lying about related fields, slight twitch of index finger when drinking' and concludes 'Shit, the Johnson's setting us up!'

[Whipstitch]

Thing is, you can't really turn a lot of that superficial stuff off because you do an awful lot of it reflexively already. For example, two people having an agreeable conversation will tend to fall into similar rhythms with their speech patterns-- one person often unconsciously changes their speech pattern to match the other's or else they both meet somewhere in the middle. That's part of why it's often easy to tell just by voices if two people are getting along even if you don't speak the language. Hell, there's some evidence that a lot of "charming" people aren't particularly witty or smart or any of that other stuff we tend to attribute to them. Sometimes they're just like a good bassist-- you can plug them in with any partner and they'll still find the rhythm that signals "Hey, we're getting along!"

[Teryon]

Thing is, you can't really turn a lot of that superficial stuff off because you do an awful lot of it reflexively already. For example, two people having an agreeable conversation will tend to fall into similar rhythms with their speech patterns-- one person often unconsciously changes their speech pattern to match the other's or else they both meet somewhere in the middle. That's part of why it's often easy to tell just by voices if two people are getting along even if you don't speak the language. Hell, there's some evidence that a lot of "charming" people aren't particularly witty or smart or any of that other stuff we tend to attribute to them. Sometimes they're just like a good bassist-- you can plug them in with any partner and they'll still find the rhythm that signals "Hey, we're getting along!"

Like most reflexes, if you put enough training into it you'd STOP doing them, and start being able to control it. I wager at least some people in RL like actors(of course, could be talking out of ass here) pull this sort of thing. At least the better ones. Id wager in Shadowrun this sort of thing is more common since any revealing info can and will be use against you.

[KarmaInferno]

Teryon, on the one hand, I sort of know what you mean. On the other, I just keep thinking "Good god, is 6 a whole lot of dice for something that's works in all social situations." A social adept should seriously be using it all the time even if by all rights he'd probably be thinking "Yeah, tell me something I don't know" after every suggestion.

This gets me to thinking... how about treat it EXACTLY like Improved Ability, except it remains bonus dice instead of a full skill increase?

Limit the bonus dice to half of the actual skill rating.



-k

[Whipstitch]

Like most reflexes, if you put enough training into it you'd STOP doing them, and start being able to control it. I wager at least some people in RL like actors(of course, could be talking out of ass here) pull this sort of thing. At least the better ones.

Oh, actors try, but for the most part they fail at it or at least are unnaturally still. That's part of why you'll commonly read that specific pairings work well together and that in comedy-- a genre where it's vitally important that people seem likeable even if they are often behaving badly-- people prefer to work with same circle of actors. It's all because chemistry is a REALLY hard thing to fake. That's part of why actors are often cast in roles they didn't initially intend to audition for. It's not that they're bad, necessarily, but what they have to do--and with whom-- can have a huge impact on things. I find it a bit telling that a lot of people hailed as our best actors are people known for taking parts where the character isn't very socially adept or is a bit of a loner, like Robert De Niro. It's simply a lot easier to convince people that you're aloof than it is to convince people that you can walk into a room and build a rapport with anyone. You can also make a very real argument that the whole concept behind method acting is the notion that if you are "into character" then you don't have to try so hard to fake things to begin with.